Is a Privately Funded Manned Mission to Mars Possible?

An artist's rendering of a manned Mars mission (Image credit: NASA).

A manned mission to Mars has been a longstanding goal of space programs worldwide: the Russian, Chinese, and American space programs all ostensibly have plans to land humans on the Red Planet. It’s a bipartisan proposal: Presidents George H. Bush, George W. Bush, and Obama have all explicitly mentioned Americans hopping around the martian surface as a goal of U.S. space policy.

Grand plans have come and gone, stagnating due to flagging political will and seemingly prohibitive price tags. But just how difficult is it to fund a manned mission to Mars? Is the multibillion-dollar price tag really a deal breaker?

History has shown us that the truly exploratory ventures – the ones that require a huge up-front cost, lots of risk, and uncertain returns – are often state-funded. Think Henry the Navigator, who used Portuguese funds to advance exploration southward along Africa’s west coast, or Spanish monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella, who famously helped fund Columbus. The Space Age bolsters this perspective: all exploratory manned and robotic missions over the last five decades have been funded by governments.

But does this have to be the case? As private enterprises begin to gain a toehold in the space travel market, couldn’t they put together some cash and push the outer boundaries? Is a privately funded manned mission to Mars possible?

The instinctive response is a definitive “no;” the costs seem prohibitive, even for the Carlos Slims and Bill Gateses of the world. Estimates for a manned Mars mission regularly drift into the hundreds of billions of dollars, but careful accounting of a particularly economical approach known as Mars Direct cites an expense of $5 to $50 billion. According to Robert Zubrin, the architect and indefatigable champion of the proposal, “while Mars Direct might cost $30 to $50 billion if implemented by NASA, if done by a private outfit spending its own money, the out-of-pocket cost would probably be in the $5 billion range.” The wide disparity, according to the numbers folks, accounts for the efficiencies of private companies ($5 billion) compared to the more spendy, bureaucratic public option ($50 billion).

$5 billion is a lot of money, but it might not be out of the realm of possibility. After all, the rich are richer than ever before: Not only is more of the world’s money concentrated in the hands of fewer people, but the scales of personal fortunes are off the historical charts. According to Forbes’ 2012 list of billionaires, 205 different individuals have $5 billion or more; for Bill Gates, such a cost represents just one-twelfth of his net worth. If we distribute the burden and bring in a few dozen mere multi-millionaires, the pool of potential donors expands dramatically.

And a final appeal to the regulars on Forbes’ Richest list: what could possibly be a better legacy than funding our species’ first foray onto another planet? The Apollo 11 Moon landing is often referenced as one of the pinnacles of human technological achievement, the best of what our species is capable of. Many billionaires are content to splash their names over university buildings or build palatial estates, but how could you not want to be associated with our species’ first step onto another planet? The extremely wealthy are not immune to ego boosts, and facilitating an expedition of such historical proportions would ensure fame in perpetuity.

There are some encouraging signs. A coterie of millionaires seems committed to spending their fortunes on exploratory ventures of varying scientific merit and profitability potentials. Richard Branson, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and James Cameron are all involved with high-tech, high-budget enterprises that reveal a deep desire to explore. The intellectual and emotional foundations are in place; hopefully a manned Mars mission is just a matter of time.